The U.S. military says it is still weighing its response to a rocket attack on the al-Asad base in western Iraq on Monday. Five U.S. personnel were injured, including one seriously, according to reports.
"Base personnel are conducting a post-attack damage assessment," one of the base officials told reporters, suggesting that the casualty count could change. Two Katyusha rockets were fired at the the base, and one reportedly landed inside. This was the site of the 2020 militant attack following the U.S. assassination of Iran's top military commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in 2020. Some 100 American service members were diagnosed with brain injuries after that incident.
The U.S. still has 2,500 troops in Iraq though there has been official talks in recent weeks over efforts to draw them down. However, attacks by Iran-backed militants on the American bases resumed two weeks ago as tensions continued to escalate between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. then launched its first airstrike in Iraq in months targeting militants it said were about to launch an unmanned drone in Musayib, north of Baghdad.
The recent attacks add to the 165 incidents on Americans in Iraq and Syria since Israel's war on Gaza began. The U.S. has about 900 troops still in Syria.
U.S. officials are expecting the worst as Israel conducted a series of Hamas and Hezbollah assassinations, including a top political leader, in Tehran, last week. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had a call with his counterpart Yoav Gallant in Israel Monday night to discuss what he called a "dangerous escalation."
"We agreed the attack from Iran-aligned militias on U.S. forces stationed at Al-Asad Airbase in western Iraq marked a dangerous escalation, and I updated Minister Gallant on measures to strengthen U.S. military posture in light of this escalating situation," Austin posted on X.
While Washington invariably claims our troops are there to confront ISIS remnants and/or Iranian proxies, critics say there is no strategic value to remaining in the region, that these troops are caught in the crossfire of a regional conflict. "Shooting rockets at U.S. bases is a time-tested way for Iran and its proxy militias to harass the Americans whenever the heat rises," charged Defense Priorities analyst and writer Dan DePetris on X shortly after the latest attacks were reported. "They can dial the pressure up or down depending on the circumstances. Removing U.S. forces would remove that card."
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq – Soldiers from Company D, 10th Aviation Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, move a MQ-1C Gray Eagle into position prior to conducting a mission at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, August, 4,2017. . (U.S. Army photo by Capt. Stephen James)
Ronald Lamola, South Africa Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, with Joy Reid, National Press Club, Washington, 9/17/24. (Khody Akhavi/Quincy Institute)
In his first official visit to Washington since his appointment in June, Ronald Lamola, South Africa's Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, was quite frank about global obligations regarding Gaza.
“We are clear in our condemnation of what we believe is genocide that is happening,” he said of the Israel war in the Gaza Strip and the case that South Africa has brought to the International Court of Justice. The court in January agreed there were "plausible" grounds for South Africa to make a case that what is happening in Gaza is genocide. The ICJ has not made a final ruling on the question of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention (of which Israel is not a member).
As for South Africa's other case, on the impact of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Lamola likened his own country’s history with apartheid to what Palestinians are enduring in the territories.
“(It’s) similar to what we had gone through as a country,” he said at the event hosted by the Quincy Institute at the National Press Club Tuesday morning. “We have a moral obligation, more than any other country in the world, to stand up and say what Israel is doing is unlawful… having lived the experience of what Palestinians are currently experiencing.”
He was responding to a question asked by interviewer and MSNBC host Joy Reid, who noted that a world-wide campaign of boycott and divestment had led to the collapse of the apartheid government in South Africa in 1990. Should the world be doing the same for Palestinians, she asked, acknowledging that this is a radioactive issue in Washington and in many states, which have tried to ban BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movements against Israel for years.
Lamola didn’t hesitate. “There is no reason that there should not be action taken by member states to put the necessary pressure on the state of Israel,” to stop fueling its military operations (which South Africa believes is a genocide) against Palestinians in Gaza, he said, and that includes an arms embargo. Right now Israel has no “disincentive” to end the war, he added. He did not say anything about the war crimes charges against Hamas leaders or the group's obligations to release the hostages taken during its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, which began the war 11 months ago.
Since January the ICJ has issued several orders to Israel, including opening up Gaza to humanitarian aid, to stop its illegal occupation, and to not invade Rafah. The court has no enforcement powers and depends on member states to put on the pressure. The U.S., which is a member, has chosen to rebuke the court for its rulings. Meanwhile, accounts by journalists who have been allowed to see Rafah have said the place is now decimated.
Lamola said more countries are "pushing for change" and "beginning to say something is wrong." South Africa already had strong support for its cases from the Global South. As of June more than 10 countries have officially joined or broadcast intention to join the genocide case, including Turkey, Egypt, and Spain. In February, some 52 countries spoke in favor of South Africa’s case against Israel’s occupation policies.
For its part, Israel has said the questions put to the court are biased and false and that the rulings undermine the delicate peace process. The U.S. government has largely supported Israel’s responses to the ICJ since the beginning of the year.
"We have been clear that Israel's program of government support for settlements is both inconsistent with international law and obstructs the cause of peace," a State Department spokesperson said after the ruling on occupation in June. "However, we are concerned that the breadth of the court's opinion will complicate efforts to resolve the conflict," the spokesperson added.
Lamola said South Africa supports not only the broader peace process, but current talks in Doha for a ceasefire.
He has similar thoughts on the Ukraine conflict too. When asked by Reid what South Africa’s response to Russia’s refusal to return lands taken from Ukraine in that war, Lamola said South Africa (which has pursued a more neutral stance than the West) supports diplomacy, not further war. South Africa supports Ukraine’s rights to "territorial integrity and independence,” but “we don’t see how you can resolve the conflict without engaging both parties," he said. "This is our view. Russia must be brought to the table, to engage with these issues and to find a resolution. The same with Palestine."
F
keep readingShow less
A photograph, taken during an embed with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reviewed by the IDF censorship office prior to publication, shows Israeli soldiers guarding a tunnel in the Tel al Sultan area. Credit: Ilia Yefimovich/dpa via Reuters Connect
Hamas terrorists were responsible for the deaths of 1,139 Israelis – mostly civilians – on October 7, 2023. The Israeli government was fully within its rights to bring the terrorists to justice.
But nearing the one-year mark of Israel’s resultant war against Hamas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may now be an impediment to peace rather than providing a path to it.
No one can question Israel’s right to seek justice for Hamas’s bloody massacre on 10/7 and few challenge Washington for providing military support to Israel as it seeks to punish Hamas. Yet it is entirely reasonable to question how Israel is conducting its operations, especially if it becomes apparent the Israeli government pursues a course of action that is ineffective — or worse — is making Israel less secure.
I have argued, as far back as November of last yearon CNN that Netanyahu has been using military power to pursue a political objective that cannot succeed: the total elimination of Hamas. The reason is simple: one cannot kill an idea with bombs and bullets.
Israel unequivocally has the single most powerful military in the Middle East. In the aftermath of suffering a terrorist attack that caused large scale civilian casualties, it is an understandable and seductive temptation to use that military power to crush one’s enemy. But using a hammer to do a job more suited to a surgeon’s knife was always going to produce results that were anywhere from ineffective to outright self-defeating.
The task facing the Israeli government following 10/7 was monumental: how to bring justice to the political and military force of Hamas (numbering somewhere around 30,000 fighters) who were interwoven within a civilian population of approximately 2.3 million? Taking no action was never an option, so the only question was how best to conduct lethal military operations to justly degrade Hamas.
Doing the job right would have been costly to the Israeli Defense Forces in terms of both time and troops lost. Generally, the IDF could have cut the Gaza strip into sections, isolating one from the rest. They could have screened and then temporarily relocated all the civilians into other secured areas, and then methodically moved through the cordoned area to either capture or kill all the fighters. Once an area was cleared, the civilian residents could have returned, and the IDF would move to the next cordoned area.
Collateral damage would have resulted everywhere Hamas fighters chose to stand and fight, but it would have been limited. Once an area had been cleansed of terrorists, the area would be secured by other troops to limit other Hamas fighters from returning. Meanwhile the civilian population would then be allowed to return and have a safe place to live.
As the U.S. Army did with mixed success in similar scaled urban operations in Iraq, the IDF could have prioritized protecting the civilian population, keeping them supplied with internationally provided relief supplies, and sought their help in identifying and removing Hamas. If the people were given motivation in helping to eliminate Hamas and given a legitimate path to even limited self-governance with a new political entity, it is possible the Palestinians could have made the IDF’s job less difficult.
That’s what Israel could have done; that’s what using a scalpel would have looked like.
What the IDF chose to do instead, however, is to use a sledgehammer to systematically destroy virtually everything inside the Gaza strip. Tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians have been directly killed by IDF operations and hundreds of thousands more suffer from injury and disease; virtually the entire population is now at risk of famine. However many actual Hamas fighters Israel has killed are likely dwarfed by the number of Palestinian males who now hate Israel and desire revenge for the death of loved ones.
I observed firsthand in both Iraq and Afghanistan how U.S. military operations that inadvertently killed innocent Afghan and Iraqi citizens always produced more enemies for us to face. The last decade of the Afghan war — including the surge and a total of 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops supporting over 350,000 Afghan security forces — saw the number of Taliban fighters against us explode from an estimated 20,000 in 2014 to over 75,000 by 2021.
The number of men willing to take up arms against Israel today is likely many times more than the 30,000 it was last October.
The damage done to Israeli security interests over the past 11 months has been incalculable. We likely won’t know for years to come just how much damage has been done. But before any more harm is done, before Netanyahu’s sledgehammer strategy produces even worse results, Washington should demand a change of course and a genuine effort to find a ceasefire — or be willing to use our leverage and withhold major weapons and ammunition deliveries.
There remains an uncomfortably high chance the war escalates and blows up into a regional conflagration that could draw the U.S. into a direct role — strongly antithetical to our interests. American, and even Israeli, interests are best served by limiting the damage done thus far by Hamas’s terror attack last October and Israel’s counterproductive response by seeking an immediate ceasefire to allow the possibility of a long-term solution to be formed.
There will be no quick solution and no painless, cost-free ways to end this war; it took decades to get to this point and it will take decades to solve it. But things are at least manageable today. Failure to show firm U.S. leadership to bring the fighting to an end and start the long, laborious diplomatic process could result in America inadvertently getting sucked into a regional war.
keep readingShow less
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (NATO/Flickr/Creative Commons)
In an interview with Foreign Policy on Monday, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg doubled down on his hawkish outlook toward Russia.
Stoltenberg, who has been NATO chief since 2014 and will be replaced by former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in October, indicated that Since North Korea, China, and Iran have been supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, that NATO should work more closely with its allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
He added:
“North Korea is providing an enormous amount of, in particular, ammunition to Russia. And a lot of that is transported on railroad, railroad which is crossing the border from North Korea, the land border, into Russia, and then all the way to the frontlines, and that capacity is quite huge to transport by railroad, and that's also reason why it is important to continue to have severe sanctions on North Korea, and also reason why NATO has stepped up further the cooperation we have with our Asia Pacific partners, that includes South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.”
When interviewer Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, mentioned the potential for NATO overextension and that sanctions have not historically worked, Stoltenberg replied, “so while NATO is a regional alliance, we need a global approach, and that includes also our approach to China. Because again, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that our security is not regional. Our security is global.”
He then added, “what happens in Asia matters for Europe. What happens in Europe matters for Asia. Or, as the Japanese Prime Minister said recently, that what happens in Ukraine can happen in Asia today can happen in Asia tomorrow.”
He also pushed the narrative that China and Russia were closer than ever "That's not because NATO has pushed them together," he charged, "It's because they align in standing of what they believe in a different world order.”
Because of this, Stoltenberg said he believes that increased sanctions are necessary.
This narrative should be challenged, said Mark Episkopos, Eurasia fellow at the Quincy Institute. “Stoltenberg’s comments reflect the catechistic view — one that stubbornly persists even in the lack of any corroborating evidence — that “Dragonbear,” or the Sino-Russian axis against the West, is the inevitable result of what he and others see as an global, predetermined conflict between the two incompatible poles of democracy and authoritarianism.”
“In fact, this convergence is the result of concrete choices made by Western policymakers since the end of the Cold War,” he added. “The Western maximum-pressure campaign against Russia after 2022 has failed in its basic purpose of compelling Moscow to relent its invasion of Ukraine, but it has successfully severed Russia from the Western economic and political sphere in a way that greatly increased its commercial and diplomatic dependence on China.”
Meanwhile, Stoltenberg said he strongly supports Ukraine using long range missiles to fire into Russian territory, stating that they were imperative if Ukraine was to take out Moscow’s artillery positions.
When questioned whether this could potentially push President Putin into using nuclear weapons, the NATO chief seemed to suggest that Putin would not act and therefore the West could keep pushing. “We are monitoring and tracking very closely what Russia is doing,” he said, however, “so far, we haven't seen any changes in their nuclear posture that require any changes from our side.”
The unfortunate reality is that when a party chooses to utilize nuclear arms, escalation is hard to manage.
What about Ukraine’s possible NATO membership? Stoltenberg said the process to join has been streamlined, with Ukraine no longer having to submit a Membership Action Plan, and is now awaiting a formal invitation. No timeline was given — but the outgoing NATO chief was quick to highlight how integrated the alliance and Ukraine were becoming.
He touted the fact that Ukrainian forces are being integrated into NATO standards, training command facilities are getting set up in Poland and Germany, and the establishment of the NATO Ukraine Council, which is, according to NATO “the joint body where Allies and Ukraine sit as equal participants to advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation and Ukraine’s aspirations for membership in NATO. It provides for joint consultations, decision-making and activities. It also serves as a crisis consultation mechanism between NATO and Ukraine.”
He also reiterated that Ukraine’s path to NATO was “irreversible.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.